Despite Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's flat-out admission to the Russian leader that he was responsible for an August 21 chemical weapons attack on a suburban Damascus neighborhood, Russian president Vladimir Putin confirmed Wednesday that al-Assad has yet to provide a convincing case that he carried out the assault.

Russia and China need to have their veto power removed or the US should exit the United Nations. They use the veto to simply make the US look bad. Those countries could less about the world. How much money per year do we waste on that worthless organisation? Actually nobody should have veto power in the UN. It should be up and down votes.

Granny_Panties:Russia and China need to have their veto power removed or the US should exit the United Nations. They use the veto to simply make the US look bad. Those countries could less about the world. How much money per year do we waste on that worthless organisation? Actually nobody should have veto power in the UN. It should be up and down votes.

Granny_Panties:Russia and China need to have their veto power removed or the US should exit the United Nations. They use the veto to simply make the US look bad. Those countries could less about the world. How much money per year do we waste on that worthless organisation? Actually nobody should have veto power in the UN. It should be up and down votes.

fark THE UN

The veto power is the only reason the UN works AT ALL. It gives the nations capable of farking everything up for everyone a reason to engage and keeps them from worrying about being ganged-up on. It's far from ideal, but they tried the alternative once before and failed.

Almost Everybody Poops:Graspin' at straws now. I'm eagerly waiting for the farkers convinced it's a rebel attack to come into this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised that it was a rebel attack:

1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace on the day that UN inspectors were coming into the country. That's remarkably poor planning if the Syrian government did it.3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.5) alQaeda, for example, wouldn't be too finicky about killing hundreds of innocent civilians. That's sort of their forte. So no problem taking out a rebel area. They were probably the wrong sect anyway.6) The rebels have a huge amount to gain by bringing in foreign intervention.

As I said, I haven't heard or seen any evidence proving or even strongly indicating which side did the attack. We're just supposed to take the word of our leaders. Right.

All I'm saying is that objectively, there's good reason to think a really bad group of rebels, like alQaeda, did this.

To be fair, it was basically a report that "hello this is chemical weapons" and didn't try to say who committed the attack.

You mean the part where they calculate the trajectory from one of the Syrian made missiles carrying ~500Kg of a chemical agent back to a compound of the Syrian Republican Guard? Or are you writing about some other part of the report.

enemy of the state:Almost Everybody Poops: Graspin' at straws now. I'm eagerly waiting for the farkers convinced it's a rebel attack to come into this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised that it was a rebel attack:

1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace on the day that UN inspectors were coming into the country. That's remarkably poor planning if the Syrian government did it.3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.5) alQaeda, for example, wouldn't be too finicky about killing hundreds of innocent civilians. That's sort of their forte. So no problem taking out a rebel area. They were probably the wrong sect anyway.6) The rebels have a huge amount to gain by bringing in foreign intervention.

As I said, I haven't heard or seen any evidence proving or even strongly indicating which side did the attack. We're just supposed to take the word of our leaders. Right.

All I'm saying is that objectively, there's good reason to think a really bad group of rebels, like alQaeda, did this.

Those are valid points, but the forensic evidence in the report is pretty damning. types of rockets described in the report are large enough that only a battery would be able to launch them, and I don't believe the rebels have been able to acquire such weapons. Also, given the amount of sarin gas used (55 liters I believe) the rebels would have had to capture a significant and most likely heavily guarded base, and given the direction of the war that's highly doubtful.

And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Granny_Panties:Russia and China need to have their veto power removed or the US should exit the United Nations. They use the veto to simply make the US look bad. Those countries could less about the world. How much money per year do we waste on that worthless organisation? Actually nobody should have veto power in the UN. It should be up and down votes.

fark THE UN

Fark the UN, and fark China! No throw a shift on that young'un mama, we goin' to Wal-Mart!

To be fair, it was basically a report that "hello this is chemical weapons" and didn't try to say who committed the attack.

You mean the part where they calculate the trajectory from one of the Syrian made missiles carrying ~500Kg of a chemical agent back to a compound of the Syrian Republican Guard? Or are you writing about some other part of the report.

No, wrong report.

The UN report on the August 21st chemical weapons attacks are, by the terms negotiated by the Syrian government as a precondition for allowing UN inspectors into the country, not allowed to assign blame to either Syria or the rebels.

The report, however, did note the areas where the weapons landed and the general directions they were traveling from before delivering its payload.

Third party analysts were the ones who took all of the directions and the data about the locations where the munitions were found and traced it back to the Syrian Republican Guard base.

Apik0r0s:Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

Apik0r0s:Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

Based on the impact crater, you can determine information about where the projectile came from. Physics is our friend.

Almost Everybody Poops:Apik0r0s: Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

sign_of_Zeta:Apik0r0s: Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

Based on the impact crater, you can determine information about where the projectile came from. Physics is our friend.

They lie that the rebels did the attack, we lie that we have evidence proving the attack was ordered by Assad, but we both agree that the Syrians have to give up their chemical weapons, and that is all that really matters.

enemy of the state:3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

Apik0r0s:Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

We have this thing called "science" that allows us to calculate such things.

cptjeff:Apik0r0s: Almost Everybody Poops: And of course, there's the evidence that two of the rockets' trajectory points straight back to a Syrian Republican National Guard base that was already assumed to contain CW.

Really? Is the rocket's trajectory still stuck there in the sky like a rainbow?

We have this thing called "science" that allows us to calculate such things.

enemy of the state:1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace

So Assad was winning...but the rebels had gotten within a few miles to the presidential palace?

enemy of the state:4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.

So you're saying that the rebels dressed up in Syrian army uniforms, then took over Syrian army artillery, accurately aim them to their own rebel side, load them up with Sarin gas (and the rebels have no experience with these weapon systems), then bombard 10-11 rebel-held areas, and sneak away with no evidence of their activities? Doesn't that seem a little..crazy?

cptjeff:enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

I haven't seen any information about missiles. It sounds like heresay to me, after the fact. It could be true, of course. But it sure hasn't had a high profile in the news. Are there any reliable Western journalists in that part of the country who know enough to say what kind of missiles they were?

As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

I'm sure that Syrian soldiers could be bribed, or killed, or just going over to the rebels' side. I just don't see rebels getting hold of sarin or even small missiles as a big stretch.

As far as alQaeda or Hezbollah go, I doubt they consider Syrians to be 'their people'. Why would they? They're not Syrians. I don't think Hezbollah would do such a thing, but I think alQaeda would do it without a second thought. And we're not talking a 'vague hope of US aid' here, we're talking the US kicking the shiat out of Assad after Obama made his 'red line' statements. I think alQaeda would think that was a great use of sarin. alQaeda is Sunni, Assad is shiate, they're pretty much by definition greater enemies with each other than they'd ever be with the West.

As far as wires go, easily fabricated. Are you going to kill people who are not a threat to the US on the basis of that? Really, that's not a valid moral proposition.

If there is conclusive proof one way or the other, neither the US or the Russian governments have presented it very well. Perhaps there is conclusive proof, although based on what I know I tend to doubt that, frankly.

I am not a moron. I would just like a little proof before the US gets involved in the killing business here.

People get called morons all the time on Fark, which I guess is OK, but my view only people with very limited minds feel the urge to call others names like that.

enemy of the state:cptjeff: enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

I haven't seen any information about missiles. It sounds like heresay to me, after the fact. It could be true, of course. But it sure hasn't had a high profile in the news. Are there any reliable Western journalists in that part of the country who know enough to say what kind of missiles they were?

As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

I'm sure that Syrian soldiers could be bribed, or killed, or just going over to the rebels' side. I just don't see rebels getting hold of sarin or even small missiles as a big stretch.

As far as alQaeda or Hezbollah go, I doubt they consider Syrians to be 'their people'. Why would they? They're not Syrians. I don't think Hezbollah would do such a thing, but I think alQaeda would do it without a second thought. And we're not talking a 'vague hope of US aid' here, we're talking the US kicking the shiat out of Assad after Obama made his 'red line' statements. I think alQaeda would think that was a great use of sarin. alQaeda is Sunni, Assad is shiate, they're pretty much by definition greater enemies with each other than they'd ever be with the West.

As far as wires go, easily fabricated. Are you going to kill people who are not a threat to the US on the basis of that? Really, that's not a valid moral proposition.

If there is conclusive proof one way or the other, neither the US or the Russian governments have presented it very well. Perhaps there is conclusive proof, although based on what I know I tend to doubt that, frankly.

I am not a moron. I would just like a little proof before the US gets involved in the killing business here.

People get called morons all the time on Fark, which I guess is OK, but my view only people with very limited minds feel the urge to call others names like that.

It doesn't concern you that you turn to complicated scenarios in which it was rebels that carried out a sophisticated secret attack using stolen weapons they have little to no experience with on their own controlled territory as a secret ruse to get the US to attack Assad when the more rational explanation of the Syrian military being responsible is more aligned with the actual facts?

Shanghai_Flyer:enemy of the state: 1) Assad was winning the war. He had alot to lose by using chemical weapons and little to gain.2) The attack was a few miles from the presidential palace

So Assad was winning...but the rebels had gotten within a few miles to the presidential palace?

Generally speaking, the war is not going the rebel's way. I believe it's basically a case that the areas attacked were civilian areas, probably more or less sympathetic to the rebels, but not worth the trouble to eliminate.

enemy of the state: 4) Easy to dress rebels up in Syrian army uniforms and launch an attack from area the government controls.

So you're saying that the rebels dressed up in Syrian army uniforms, then took over Syrian army artillery, accurately aim them to their own rebel side, load them up with Sarin gas (and the rebels have no experience with these weapon systems), then bombard 10-11 rebel-held areas, and sneak away with no evidence of their activities? Doesn't that seem a little..crazy?

Well, the uniforms are easy. Aiming is easy, these people have been at war a long time and very likely alot of them were in the Syrian army. Sarin is pretty easy to handle and capturing or otherwise obtaining shells that are loaded are ready to go is probably not a big deal. Use guns or money, not impossible by any means. You don't have to take over a Syrian artillery installation, all you have to do is use an artillery gun that's been captured.

As far as leaving behind evidence? How are you going to tell what an artillery gun was used for? What kind of evidence do you expect to find? It would be easy to load spent shells into a truck and get rid of them somewhere.

So, a complicated action, but not impossible by any means.

I'm just saying that *as far as I know* there is no conclusive proof that the Syrian government or the rebels did this, either way. Perhaps there are people on fark or in the media with access to better information but they sure aren't presenting it here, other than to claim it exists. A couple of links would be nice.

I'm old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that was the excuse for Vietnam, and we all remember Colin Powell at the UN saying with a clear conscience that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. (In fact, when Bush was taking heat and no weapons were found Putin wrote to the Washington Post twice to say that Russian intelligence had concluded the weapons existed).

So, two major wars which the US didn't win, based on 'intelligence'. I'm just not that pumped up on getting involved in a third war (likely a proxy war with Russia) without some indisputable proof. It might be there, but I haven't see it. That's all I'm saying.

cptjeff:enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

Okay, I'm not really disagreeing with you but from what I read in TFA and other articles it seems the Russians may be saying that the rebels used them first.It's not quit clear and the UN team only looked at the last big attack that fit the Western narrative.Now then does it make sense that Russia whats to look over the evidence the Western powers have supposedly gathered? Of course it does and if you can lead me to links where the evidence is fully disclosed I would be happy, oh and so would the Russians. Ya gotta know they're wanting to know how Israel intercepted Syrian communications. Was it over the air and encoded? Suggest they broke the code. Can't imagine anyone thinking a cell phone was secure so we can rule that out. Was it a land line they picked it of of., I'm sure their curious. Then radar or satellite intercepts of the missiles trajectory, well I'm curious myself on how good those have gotten these days.

So don't go all derp and act like this is a closed case when it's really not. Nobody has presented real evidence other than hearsay and the UN report. .No, I do figure it was Syria in the last big attack and I have no clue on what happened with the smaller attacks early on. Although to compare such speculation as the same as "lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter" well you sir are getting close to herp and derp territory.

enemy of the state:As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

And here I was worried that a limited military strike on Syria would be a waste of money. Whoever negotiated your student loan, makes it look downright frugal.

tinfoil-hat maggie:cptjeff: enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

Okay, I'm not really disagreeing with you but from what I read in TFA and other articles it seems the Russians may be saying that the rebels used them first.It's not quit clear and the UN team only looked at the last big attack that fit the Western narrative.Now then does it make sense that Russia whats to look over the evidence the Western powers have supposedly gathered? Of course it does and if you can lead me to links where the evidence is fully disclosed I would be happy, oh and so would the Russians. Ya gotta know they're wanting to know how Israel intercepted Syrian communications. Was it over the air and encoded? Suggest they broke the code. Can't imagine anyone thinking a cell phone was secure so we can rule that out. Was it a land l ...

Hint: The Russians are lying because it serves their strategic interests to keep the Assad regime in place.

This is not an open question. Putin is lying. This should not come as a surprise to anybody who knows anything about Vladimir Putin. We are talking about the guy who kills journalists when they disagree with him or point out any flaws he or his government may have, remember? It serves Russia's strategic interests to keep Assad in place, and they don't mind launching a propaganda campaign to do it. They're also giving him lots of weapons- Putin is not some disinterested observer merely seeking the facts. He's an active participant who is trying to maintain control over a military base that gives Russia its only direct access to the Mediterranean ocean, which is kind of important to them, and he can only ensure that by keeping Assad in place.

Please don't be naive enough to think that Putin just wants peace and truth. He's playing you.

enemy of the state:cptjeff: enemy of the state: 3) I've heard or seen no information of any sort that proves the Syrian government did it. Too be fair, that's true of the rebels. Apparently we're supposed to act on faith either way.

The missiles were consistent with those used in regime attacks, and were launched from regime controlled areas. Oh, and the chemical weapons are probably the most heavily secured assets in the Syrian government's arsenal. Not to mention the wire intercepts, the fact that rebels were killed... Do you really think the rebels would kill their own children and aid workers for some vague hope of US aid? On what planet does that happen? Not to mention that if the rebels wound up with Chemical weapons, don't you think Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, which would almost certainly wind up in control of them, if just by virtue of their technical capability, would find better uses for them than gassing their own people?

If you think that there's any chance the rebels were the ones who launched the chemical weapons attack, you're either a moron or Russia. I'm sorry, but there is no remotely plausible scenario where that happens. It's on the level of the lizard people arranging the JFK assassination with Bigfoot being the second shooter.

I haven't seen any information about missiles. It sounds like heresay to me, after the fact. It could be true, of course. But it sure hasn't had a high profile in the news. Are there any reliable Western journalists in that part of the country who know enough to say what kind of missiles they were?

As regards trajectories, I have a PhD in physics and know a bit about the sorts of craters meteors make under different circumstances and I greatly doubt that you could calculate a missile trajectory with any reliability based on a hole in the ground.

I'm sure that Syrian soldiers could be bribed, or killed, or just going over to the rebels' side. I just don't see rebels getting hold of sarin or even small missiles as a big stretch.

As far as al ...

A well established discipline (U.S. Army Arty Periodical from `44 - with illustrations): http://sil-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/archives/1944/NOV_1944/NOV_1944_ FULL_EDITION.pd f (no direct link - sorry - you can find it)